Sunday, May 28, 2017

Comments on metamodernism

I'm not crazy about the postmodern (pomo) characterization in #2 of the first 10. On the one hand is the
critique of pomo not being able to take a metanarractive stand due to
situational considerations, yet taking a metanarrative stand that the
pomo stand is right. Wilber might call
that its performative contradiction. But in another sense, at least in
regard to #2, pomo is rightly taking a better, metamodern stand against
the usual dichotomy more often found in modernism.

At
the end of the 2nd article he asks a lot of questions about
metamodernism that need to be answered. One in particular I highlight is
indicative that the field is not set in stone based on any particular
interpretation. And that it is pointless to argue
that if one doesn't agree with any particular interpretation then of
course they just can really be metamodern. The broader integral
community is learning this, even if there are still some dogmatic
islanders.

"Disagreements between metamodernists
still abound and will continue to be a topic of conversation online and
in academic journals."

Note that online conversation
is a valid means of exploration, not just academic journals. Yes, the
former doesn't have the strict sort of peer review of the latter. But
the former does indeed have peer validation of the peer to peer sort,
just as useful and worthy. Which is in fact one of the principles
Abramson details.

Another
interesting point is that many in the art world are already displaying
some of these metamodern principles, even being ignorant of them or
identifying as modern or postmodern. One doesn't have to intellectually
elucidate or accept these principles to be examples of them. And one
certainly does not have to speak metalingus to be part of the
phenomenon. And one certainly does not exemplify the phenomenon just by
rote learning the principles and espousing them.